[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 183 (Wednesday, September 22, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 51251-51258]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-24695]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[OPP-300914; FRL-6380-1]
 RIN 2070-AB


Tebufenozide; Benzoic Acid, 3,5-dimethyl-1-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-2-
(4-ethylbenzoyl)hydrazide; Pesticide Tolerance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

 ACTION:  Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY:  This regulation establishes a tolerance for residues of 
tebufenozide in or on sugarcane and sugarcane molasses. Rohm and Haas 
Company requested this tolerance under the Federal Food, Drug, and 
Cosmetic Act, as amended by the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996.

DATES: This regulation is effective September 22, 1999. Objections and 
requests for hearings, identified by docket control number OPP-300914, 
must be received by EPA on or before November 22, 1999.

ADDRESSES:  Written objections and hearing requests may be submitted by 
mail, in person, or by courier. Please follow the detailed instructions 
for each method as provided in Unit VI. of the ``SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION'' section. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, your objections 
and hearing requests must identify docket control number OPP-300914 in 
the subject line on the first page of your response.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By mail: Joseph Tavano, Registration 
Division (7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental 
Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone 
number: (703) 305-6411; and e-mail address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

     You may be affected by this action if you are an agricultural 
producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. Potentially 
affected categories and entities may include, but are not limited to:


 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Examples of
            Categories                   NAICS            Potentially
                                                       Affected Entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry                          111                 Crop production
                                  112                 Animal production
                                  311                 Food manufacturing
                                  32532               Pesticide
                                                       manufacturing
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides 
a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this 
action. Other types of entities not listed in the table could also be 
affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) 
codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining 
whether or not this action might apply to certain entities. If you have 
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular 
entity, consult the person listed in the ``FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT'' section.

B. How Can I Get Additional Information, Including Copies of this 
Document and Other Related Documents?

    1. Electronically.  You may obtain electronic copies of this 
document, and certain other related documents that might be available 
electronically, from the EPA Internet Home Page at http://www.epa.gov/. 
To access this document, on the Home Page select ``Laws and 
Regulations'' and then look up the entry for this document under the 
``Federal Register--Environmental Documents.'' You can also go directly 
to the Federal Register listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/.
    2. In person. The Agency has established an official record for 
this action under docket control number OPP-300914. The official record 
consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, and 
other information related to this action, including any information 
claimed as Confidential Business Information (CBI). This official 
record includes the documents that are physically located in the 
docket, as well as the documents that are referenced in those 
documents. The public version of the official record does not include 
any information claimed as CBI. The public version of the official 
record, which includes printed, paper versions of any electronic 
comments submitted during an applicable comment period is available for 
inspection in the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch 
(PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., 
Arlington, VA, from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, 
excluding legal holidays. The PIRIB telephone number is (703) 305-5805.

II. Background and Statutory Findings

    In the Federal Register of August 19, 1998 (63 FR 44439) (FRL-6019-
6), EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 408 of the Federal Food, 
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a as amended by the Food 
Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA) (Public Law 104-170) announcing 
the filing of a pesticide petition (PP 7F4863) for a tolerance by Rohm 
and Haas Company, 100 Independence Mall West, Philadelphia, PA 19106-
2399. This notice included a summary of the petition prepared by Rohm 
and Haas Company, the registrant. There were no comments received in 
response to the notice of filing.
    The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.482 be amended by 
establishing a tolerance for residues of the insecticide, tebufenozide, 
in or on sugarcane and sugarcane molasses at 0.3 and 1.0 parts per 
million (ppm) respectively. Tebufenozide is a reduced risk pesticide 
and controls sugarcane borer and Mexican rice borer on sugarcane.
    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of the FFDCA allows EPA to establish a 
tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a 
food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section 
408(b)(2)(A)(ii) defines ``safe'' to mean that ``there is a reasonable 
certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the 
pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures 
and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.'' This 
includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings, 
but does not include occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) 
requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and 
children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance 
and to ``ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will 
result to

[[Page 51252]]

infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical 
residue.''
    EPA performs a number of analyses to determine the risks from 
aggregate exposure to pesticide residues. For further discussion of the 
regulatory requirements of section 408 and a complete description of 
the risk assessment process, see the final rule on Bifenthrin Pesticide 
Tolerances (62 FR 62961, November 26, 1997) (FRL-5754-7).

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Consistent with section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the 
available scientific data and other relevant information in support of 
this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to 
make a determination on aggregate exposure, consistent with section 
408(b)(2), for a tolerance for residues of tebufenozide on sugarcane 
and sugarcane molasses at 1.0 and 3.0 ppm respectively. EPA's 
assessment of the dietary exposures and risks associated with 
establishing the tolerance follows.

A. Toxicological Profile

    EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its 
validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of 
the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered 
available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities 
of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and 
children. The nature of the toxic effects caused by tebufenozide are 
discussed in this unit.
    1. Acute toxicity studies with technical grade: Oral 
LD50 in the rat is > 5 grams for males and females - 
Toxicity Category IV; dermal LD50 in the rat is = 5,000 
milligrams/kilogram (mg/kg) for males and females - Toxicity Category 
III; inhalation LC50 in the rat is > 4.5 mg/l - Toxicity 
Category III; primary eye irritation study in the rabbit is a non-
irritant; primary skin irritation in the rabbit > 5mg - Toxicity 
Category IV. Tebufenozide is not a sensitizer.
    2. In a 21-day dermal toxicity study, Crl:CD rats (6/sex/dose) 
received repeated dermal administration of either the technical 96.1% 
product RH-75,992 at 1,000 mg/kg/day (Limit-Dose or the formulation 
(23.1% a.i.) product RH-755,992 2F at 0, 62.5, 250, or 1,000 mg/kg/day, 
6 hours/day, 5 days/week for 21 days. Under conditions of this study, 
RH-75,992 Technical or RH-75,992 2F demonstrated no systemic toxicity 
or dermal irritation at the highest dose tested 1,000 mg/kg/ during the 
21-day study. Based on these results, the NOAEL for systemic toxicity 
and dermal irritation in both sexes is 1,000 mg/kg/day HDT. A lowest 
observable adverse effect level (LOAEL) for systemic toxicity and 
dermal irritation was not established.
    3. A 1-year dog feeding study with a LOAEL of 250 ppm (9 mg/kg/day 
for male and female dogs) based on decreases in RBC, HCT, and HGB, 
increases in Heinz bodies, methemoglobin, MCV, MCH, reticulocytes, 
platelets, plasma total bilirubin, spleen weight, and spleen/body 
weight ratio, and liver/body weight ratio. Hematopoiesis and sinusoidal 
engorgement occurred in the spleen, and hyperplasia occurred in the 
marrow of the femur and sternum. The liver showed an increased pigment 
in the Kupffer cells. The no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) for 
systemic toxicity in both sexes is 50 ppm (1.9 mg/kg/day).
    4. An 18-month mouse carcinogenicity study with no carcinogenicity 
observed at dosage levels up to and including 1,000 ppm.
    5. A 2-year rat carcinogenicity with no carcinogenicity observed at 
dosage levels up to and including 2,000 ppm (97 mg/kg/day and 125 mg/
kg/day for males and females, respectively).
    6. In a prenatal developmental toxicity study in Sprague-Dawley 
rats (25/group), tebufenozide was administered on gestation days 6-15 
by gavage in aqueous methyl cellulose at dose levels of 50, 250, or 
1,000 mg/kg/day and a dose volume of 10 ml/kg. There was no evidence of 
maternal or developmental toxicity; the maternal and developmental 
toxicity NOAEL was 1,000 mg/kg/day.
    7. In a prenatal developmental toxicity study conducted in New 
Zealand white rabbits (20/group), tebufenozide was administered in 5 
ml/kg of aqueous methyl cellulose at gavage doses of 50, 250, or 1,000 
mg/kg/day on gestation days 7-19. No evidence of maternal or 
developmental toxicity was observed; the maternal and developmental 
toxicity NOAEL was 1,000 mg/kg/day.
    8. In a 1993 2-generation reproduction study in Sprague-Dawley 
rats, tebufenozide was administered at dietary concentrations of 0, 10, 
150, or 1,000 ppm (0, 0.8, 11.5, or 154.8 mg/kg/day for males and 0, 
0.9, 12.8, or 171.1 mg/kg/day for females). The parental systemic NOAEL 
was 10 ppm (0.8/0.9 mg/kg/day for males and females, respectively) and 
the LOAEL was 150 ppm (11.5/12.8 mg/kg/day for males and females, 
respectively) based on decreased body weight, body weight gain, and 
food consumption in males, and increased incidence and/or severity of 
splenic pigmentation. In addition, there was an increased incidence and 
severity of extramedullary hematopoiesis at 2,000 ppm. The reproductive 
NOAEL was 150 ppm (11.5/12.8 mg/kg/day for males and females, 
respectively), and the LOAEL was 2,000 ppm (154.8/171.1 mg/kg/day for 
males and females, respectively), based on an increase in the number of 
pregnant females with increased gestation duration and dystocia. 
Effects in the offspring consisted of decreased number of pups per 
litter on postnatal days 0 and/or 4 at 2,000 ppm (154.8/171.1 mg/kg/day 
for males and females, respectively) with a NOAEL of 150 ppm (11.5/12.8 
mg/kg/day for males and females, respectively).
    9. In a 1995 2-generation reproduction study in rats tebufenozide 
was administered at dietary concentrations of 0, 25, 200, or 2,000 ppm 
(0, 1.6, 12.6, or 126.0 mg/kg/day for males and 0, 1.8, 14.6, or 143.2 
mg/kg/day for females). For parental systemic toxicity, the NOAEL was 
25 ppm (1.6/1.8 mg/kg/day in males and females, respectively), and the 
LOAEL was 200 ppm (12.6/14.6 mg/kg/day in males and females), based on 
histopathological findings (congestion and extramedullary 
hematopoiesis) in the spleen. Additionally, at 2,000 ppm (126.0/143.2 
mg/kg/day in M/F), treatment-related findings included reduced parental 
body weight gain and increased incidence of hemosiderin-laden cells in 
the spleen. Columnar changes in the vaginal squamous epithelium and 
reduced uterine and ovarian weights were also observed at 2,000 ppm, 
but the toxicological significance was unknown. For offspring, the 
systemic NOAEL was 200 ppm (12.6/14.6 mg/kg/day in males and females), 
and the LOAEL was 2,000 ppm (126.0/143.2 mg/kg/day in M/F), based on 
decreased body weight on postnatal days 14 and 21.
    10. Several mutagenicity tests which were all negative. These 
include an Ames assay with and without metabolic activation, an in vivo 
cytogenetic assay in rat bone marrow cells, and in vitro chromosome 
aberration assay in CHO cells, a CHO/HGPRT assay, a reverse mutation 
assay with E. Coli, and an unscheduled DNA synthesis assay (UDS) in rat 
hepatocytes.
    11. The pharmacokinetics and metabolism of tebufenozide were 
studied in female Sprague-Dawley rats (3-6/sex/group) receiving a 
single oral dose of 3 or 250 mg/kg of RH-5992, 14C labeled 
in one of three positions (A-ring, B-ring or N-butylcarbon). The extent 
of absorption was not established. The

[[Page 51253]]

majority of the radiolabeled material was eliminated or excreted in the 
feces within 48 hours; small amounts (1 to 7% of the administered dose) 
were excreted in the urine and only traces were excreted in expired air 
or remained in the tissues. There was no tendency for bioaccumulation. 
Absorption and excretion were rapid.
    A total of 11 metabolites, in addition to the parent compound, were 
identified in the feces; the parent compound accounted for 96 to 99% of 
the administered radioactivity in the high dose group and 35 to 43% in 
the low dose group. No parent compound was found in the urine; urinary 
metabolites were not characterized. The identity of several fecal 
metabolites was confirmed by mass spectral analysis and other fecal 
metabolites were tentatively identified by cochromatography with 
synthetic standards. A pathway of metabolism was proposed based on 
these data. Metabolism proceeded primarily by oxidation of the three 
benzyl carbons, two methyl groups on the B-ring and an ethyl group on 
the A-ring to alcohols, aldehydes or acids. The type of metabolite 
produced varies depending on the position oxidized and extent of 
oxidation. The butyl group on the quaternary nitrogen also can be 
leaved (minor), but there was no fragmentation of the molecule between 
the benzyl rings.
    No qualitative differences in metabolism were observed between 
sexes, when high or low dose groups were compared or when different 
labeled versions of the molecule were compared.
    12. The absorption and metabolism of tebufenozide were studied in a 
group of male and female bile-duct cannulated rats. Over a 72-hour 
period, biliary excretion accounted for 30% males to 34% females of the 
administered dose while urinary excretion accounted for 5% 
of the administered dose and the carcass accounted for <0.5% of the 
administered dose for both males and females. Thus systemic absorption 
(percent of dose recovered in the bile, urine and carcass) was 35% 
(males) to 39% (females). The majority of the radioactivity in the bile 
(20% (males) to 24% (females) of the administered dose) was excreted 
within the first 6 hours postdosing indicating rapid absorption. 
Furthermore, urinary excretion of the metabolites was essentially 
complete within 24 hours postdosing. A large amount 67% (females) to 
70% (males) of the administered dose was unabsorbed and excreted in the 
feces by 72 hours. Total recovery of radioactivity was 105% of the 
administered dose.
    A total of 13 metabolites were identified in the bile; the parent 
compound was not identified i.e. - unabsorbed compound nor were the 
primary oxidation products seen in the feces in the pharmacokinetics 
study. The proposed metabolic pathway proceeded primary by oxidation of 
the benzylic carbons to alcohols, aldehydes or acids. Bile contained 
most of the other highly oxidized products found in the feces. The most 
significant individual bile metabolites accounted for 5% to 18% of the 
total radioactivity (females and/or males). Bile also contained the 
previously undetected (in the pharmacokinetics study ``A'' Ring ketone 
and the ``B'' Ring diol. The other major components were characterized 
as high molecular weight conjugates. No individual bile metabolite 
accounted for >5% of the total administered dose. Total bile 
radioactivity accounted for 17% of the total administered 
dose.
    No major qualitative differences in biliary metabolites were 
observed between sexes. The metabolic profile in the bile was similar 
to the metabolic profile in the feces and urine.

B. Toxicological Endpoints

    1. Acute toxicity. Toxicity observed in oral toxicity studies were 
not attributable to a single dose (exposure). No neuro or systemic 
toxicity was observed in rats given a single oral administration of 
tebufenozide at 0, 500, 1,000, or 2,000 mg/kg. No maternal or 
developmental toxicity was observed following oral administration of 
tebufenozide at 1,000 mg/kg/day (Limit-Dose) during gestation to 
pregnant rats or rabbits. Thus, the risk from acute exposure is 
considered negligible.
    2.  Short- and intermediate-term toxicity. No dermal or systemic 
toxicity was seen in rats receiving 15 repeated dermal applications of 
the technical (97.2%) product at 1,000 mg/kg/day (Limit-Dose) as well 
as a formulated (23% a.i.) product at 0, 62.5, 250, or 1,000 mg/kg/day 
over a 21-day period. The Agency noted that in spite of the 
hematological effects seen in the dog study, similar effects were not 
seen in the rats receiving the compound via the dermal route indicating 
poor dermal absorption. Also, no developmental endpoints of concern 
were evident due to the lack of developmental toxicity in either rat or 
rabbit studies. This risk is considered to be negligable.
    3. Chronic toxicity. EPA has established the the chronic population 
adjusted dose (cPAD) for tebufenozide at 0.018 mg/kg/day. This endpoint 
is based on the NOAEL of 1.8 mg/kg/day from a chronic toxicity study in 
dogs. Growth retardation, alterations in hematology parameters, changes 
in organ weights, and histopathological lesions in the bone, spleen and 
liver were observed at the LOAEL of 8.7 mg/kg/day in this study. An 
uncertainty factor (UF) of 100 was applied to account for interspecies 
(10x) and intraspecies (10x) variation resulting in a chronic RfD of 
1.8 mg/kg/day  100 = 0.018 mg/kg/day. For chronic dietary risk 
assessment, the 10x factor to account for the protection of infants and 
children (as required by FQPA) was removed. Therefore, the cPAD is 
identical to the chronic RfD, cPAD = chronic RfD = 0.018 mg/kg/day. 
Removing the 10x factor is supported by the following factors.
    i. Developmental toxicity studies showed no increased sensitivity 
in fetuses when compared to maternal animals following in utero 
exposures in rats and rabbits.
    ii. Multi-generation reproduction toxicity studies in rats showed 
no increased sensitivity in pups as compared to adults and offspring.
    iii. There are no data gaps.
    4. Carcinogenicity. Tebufenozide has been classified as a Group E, 
``no evidence of carcinogenicity for humans,'' chemical by EPA.

C. Exposures and Risks

    1. From food and feed uses. Tolerances have been established (40 
CFR 180.482) for the residues of tebufenozide, in or on a variety of 
raw agricultural commodities. In today's action, tolerances will be 
established for residues of tebufenozide in or on sugarcane and 
sugarcane molasses at 1.0 and 3.0 ppm, respectively. Risk assessments 
were conducted by EPA to assess dietary exposures from as follows.
    Section 408(b)(2)(F) states that the Agency may use data on the 
actual percent of crop treated (PCT) for assessing chronic dietary risk 
only if the Agency can make the following findings: That the data used 
are reliable and provide a valid basis to show what percentage of the 
food derived from such crop is likely to contain such pesticide 
residue; that the exposure estimate does not underestimate exposure for 
any significant subpopulation group; and if data are available on 
pesticide use and food consumption in a particular area, the exposure 
estimate does not understate exposure for the population in such area. 
In addition, the Agency must provide for periodic evaluation of any 
estimates used. To provide for the periodic evaluation of the estimate 
of PCT as required by section 408(b)(2)(F),

[[Page 51254]]

EPA may require registrants to submit data on PCT.
    The Agency used PCT information as follows:
    Estimates of PCT were used for the following crops. In all cases 
the maximum estimate was used.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Crops                     Average            Maximum
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Almonds...........................                <1%                <1%
Apples............................                 1%                 2%
Beans/Peas, Dry...................                 0%                 1%
Cotton............................                 1%                 4%
Walnuts...........................                10%                16%
Cabbage, Fresh....................                 2%                 3%
Cole Crops........................                 1%                 2%
Spinach, Fresh....................                 2%                 3%
Spinach, Processed................                20%                29%
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Agency believes that the three conditions, discussed in section 
408 (b)(2)(F) in this unit concerning the Agency's responsibilities in 
assessing chronic dietary risk findings, have been met. The PCT 
estimates are derived from Federal and private market survey data, 
which are reliable and have a valid basis. Typically, a range of 
estimates are supplied and the upper end of this range is assumed for 
the exposure assessment. By using this upper end estimate of the PCT, 
the Agency is reasonably certain that the percentage of the food 
treated is not likely to be underestimated. The regional consumption 
information and consumption information for significant subpopulations 
is taken into account through EPA's computer-based model for evaluating 
the exposure of significant subpopulations including several regional 
groups. Use of this consumption information in EPA's risk assessment 
process ensures that EPA's exposure estimate does not understate 
exposure for any significant subpopulation group and allows the Agency 
to be reasonably certain that no regional population is exposed to 
residue levels higher than those estimated by the Agency. Other than 
the data available through national food consumption surveys, EPA does 
not have available information on the regional consumption of food to 
which may be applied in a particular area.
    i. Acute exposure and risk. Acute dietary risk assessments are 
performed for a food-use pesticide if a toxicological study has 
indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring as a result 
of a 1-day or single exposure. Toxicity observed in oral toxicity 
studies were not attributable to a single dose (exposure). No neuro or 
systemic toxicity was observed in rats given a single oral 
administration of tebufenozide at 0, 500, 1,000 or 2,000 mg/kg. No 
maternal or developmental toxicity was observed following oral 
administration of tebufenozide at 1,000 mg/kg/day (Limit-Dose) during 
gestation to pregnant rats or rabbits. This risk is considered to be 
negligable.
    ii. Chronic exposure and risk. In conducting the DEEM (Dietary 
Exposure Evaluation Model) for chronic dietary (food only) analysis, 
EPA used tolerance level residues and some PCT (Tier 2). For the 
subject crops, the tolerances used are: 10 ppm for sugarcane, 3.0 ppm 
for sugarcane molasses. The analysis evaluates individual food 
consumption as reported by respondents in the USDA Continuing Surveys 
of Food Intake by Individuals conducted in 1989 through 1992. Summaries 
of the ARC and their representations as percentages of the cPAD for the 
general population and subgroups of interest are presented in the 
following table.

                                         Table 1.--Chronic Exposure Analysis by the DEEM System for Tebufenozide
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Population Subgroup                                  Exposure (mg/kg/day)                                 cPAD%\1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Population (48 Contiguous States)....................                                         0.0017                                            10%
Children (1-6 years old)..................................                                         0.0038                                            21%
Females (13+/nursing).....................................                                         0.0017                                            10%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ cPAD% = Exposure over cPAD X 100%

    The subgroups listed above are: (1) The U.S. population (48 
contiguous states); (2) highest exposed population subgroup that 
includes infants and children; and (3) Female 13+.
    This chronic dietary (food only) risk assessment should be viewed 
as conservative. Further refinement using anticipated residue values 
and additional PCT information would result in a lower estimate of 
chronic dietary exposure.
    2.  From drinking water-- i. Acute exposure and risk.  Because no 
acute dietary endpoint was determined, the Agency concludes that there 
is a reasonable certainty of no harm from acute exposure from drinking 
water.
    ii. Chronic exposure and risk.  EPA calculated the Tier I Estimated 
Environmental Concentrations (EECs) for tebufenozide using GENEEC 
(surface water) and SCI-GROW (ground water) for use in the human health 
risk assessment. For chronic exposure, the worst case EECs for surface 
water and ground water were 16.5 parts per billion (ppb) and 1.04 ppb, 
respectively. These values represent upper-bound estimates of the 
concentrations that might be found in surface and ground water. These 
modeling data were compared to the chronic drinking water levels of 
comparison (DWLOCs) for tebufenozide in ground and surface water.
    For purposes of chronic risk assessment, the estimated maximum 
concentration for tebufenozide in surface and ground waters (16.5 
ppb=16.5 g/L) was compared to the back-calculated human health 
DWLOCs for the chronic (non-cancer) endpoint. These DWLOCs for various 
population categories are summarized in the following table.

[[Page 51255]]



               Table 2.--Drinking Water Levels of Comparison for Chronic Exposure to Tebufenozide
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                      EEC Calc.
                                               Chronic RfD      Food      Max. Water      DWLOC     Max. (g/     m>g/L)
                                                            (mg/kg/day)  (mg/kg/day)       L)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Population (48 Contiguous States).......        0.018       0.0017        0.016           560          16.5
Female (13+ years)...........................        0.018       0.0017        0.016           480          16.5
Children (1-6)...............................        0.018       0.0038        0.014           140          16.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In performing this risk assessment, EPA has calculated drinking 
water levels of comparison (DWLOCs) for each of the DEEM population 
subgroups. Within each subgroup, the population with the highest 
estimated exposure was used to determine the maximum concentration of 
tebufenozide that can occur in drinking water without causing an 
unacceptable human health risk. As a comparison value, EPA has used the 
16.5-ppb value in this risk assessment, as this represents a worst-case 
scenario. The DWLOCs for tebufenozide are above the drinking water 
estimated concentration (DWEC) of 16.5 ppb for all population 
subgroups. Therefore, the human health risk from exposure to 
tebufenozide through drinking water in not likely to exceed EPA's level 
of concern.
    3.  From non-dietary exposure. Tebufenozide is not currently 
registered for use on any residential non-food sites. Therefore there 
are no non-dietary acute, chronic, short- or intermediate-term exposure 
scenarios.
    4. Cumulative exposure to substances with a common mechanism of 
toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) requires that, when considering 
whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency 
consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative effects of 
a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances that have a 
common mechanism of toxicity.''
    EPA does not have, at this time, available data to determine 
whether tebufenozide has a common mechanism of toxicity with other 
substances or how to include this pesticide in a cumulative risk 
assessment. Unlike other pesticides for which EPA has followed a 
cumulative risk approach based on a common mechanism of toxicity, 
tebufenozide does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by 
other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, 
EPA has not assumed that tebufenozide has a common mechanism of 
toxicity with other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts 
to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to 
evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see the final rule 
for Bifenthrin Pesticide Tolerances (62 FR 62961, November 26, 1997).

D. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety for U.S. Population

    1.  Acute risk. Since no acute toxicological endpoints were 
established, no acute aggregate risk exists.
    2.  Chronic risk.  Using the somewhat conservative exposure 
assumptions described above, and taking into account the completeness 
and reliability of the toxicity data, EPA has concluded that dietary 
(food only) exposure to tebufenozide will utilize 10% of the cPAD for 
the U.S. population, and 21% of the cPAD for the most highly exposed 
population subgroup (Children 1-6 yrs). Submitted environmental fate 
studies suggest that tebufenozide is moderately persistent to 
persistent and mobile; thus, tebufenozide could potentially leach to 
ground water and runoff to surface water under certain environmental 
conditions. The modeling data for tebufenozide indicate levels less 
than EPA's DWLOCs. EPA generally has no concern for exposures below 
100% of the cPAD. Since there are no registered residential uses of 
tebufenozide, there is no potential for exposure to tebufenozide from 
residential uses. EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty 
that no harm will result to adults, infants and children from chronic 
aggregate exposure to tebufenozide residues.
    3.  Short- and intermediate-term risk.  Short- and intermediate-
term aggregate exposure takes into account chronic dietary food and 
water (considered to be a background exposure level) plus indoor and 
outdoor residential exposure.
    Since there are currently no registered indoor or outdoor 
residential non-dietary uses of tebufenozide and no short- or 
intermediate-term toxic endpoints, short- or intermediate-term 
aggregate risks do not exist.
    4.  Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Since tebufenozide 
has been classified as a Group E, ``no evidence of carcinogenicity for 
humans,'' this risk does not exist.
    5.  Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA 
concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result 
from aggregate exposure to tebufenozide residues.

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety for Infants and Children

    1.  Safety factor for infants and children.  In assessing the 
potential for additional sensitivity of infants and children to 
residues of, EPA considered data from developmental toxicity studies in 
the rat and rabbit and a 2-generation reproduction study in the rat. 
The developmental toxicity studies are designed to evaluate adverse 
effects on the developing organism resulting from maternal pesticide 
exposure gestation. Reproduction studies provide information relating 
to effects from exposure to the pesticide on the reproductive 
capability of mating animals and data on systemic toxicity.
    FFDCA section 408 provides that EPA shall apply an additional 
tenfold margin of safety for infants and children in the case of 
threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal toxicity and 
the completeness of the data base unless EPA determines that a 
different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. 
Margins of safety are incorporated into EPA risk assessments either 
directly through use of a margin of exposure (MOE) analysis or through 
using uncertainty (safety) factors in calculating a dose level that 
poses no appreciable risk to humans. EPA believes that reliable data 
support using the standard uncertainty factor (usually 100 for combined 
interspecies and intraspecies variability) and not the additional 
tenfold MOE/uncertainty factor when EPA has a complete data base under 
existing guidelines and when the severity of the effect in infants or 
children or the potency or unusual toxic properties of a compound do 
not raise concerns regarding the adequacy of the standard MOE/safety 
factor.
    2.  Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. The toxicology data base 
for tebufenozide included acceptable developmental toxicity studies in 
both rats and rabbits as well as a 2-generation reproductive toxicity 
study in rats. The data provided no indication of increased sensitivity 
of rats or rabbits to in utero and/or postnatal exposure to

[[Page 51256]]

tebufenozide. No maternal or developmental findings were observed in 
the prenatal developmental toxicity studies at doses up to 1,000 mg/kg/
day in rats and rabbits. In the 2-generation reproduction studies in 
rats, effects occurred at the same or lower treatment levels in the 
adults as in the offspring.
    3.  Conclusion. There is a complete toxicity data base for 
tebufenozide and exposure data are complete and reasonably accounts for 
potential exposures. For the reasons summarized above, EPA concluded 
that an additional safety factor is not needed to protect the safety of 
infants and children.
    4.  Acute risk. Since no acute toxicological endpoints were 
established, no acute aggregate risk exists.
    5. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this 
unit, EPA has concluded that aggregate exposure to tebufenozide from 
food will utilize 21% of the cPAD for infants and children. Submitted 
environmental fate studies suggest that tebufenozide is moderately 
persistent to persistent and mobile; thus, tebufenozide could 
potentially leach to ground water and runoff to surface water under 
certain environmental conditions. The modeling data for tebufenozide 
indicate levels less than HED's DWLOCs. EPA generally has no concern 
for exposures below 100% of the cPAD because the cPAD represents the 
level at or below which daily aggregate dietary exposure over a 
lifetime will not pose appreciable risks to human health. Since there 
are no registered residential uses of tebufenozide, there is no 
potential for exposure to tebufenozide from residential uses. EPA 
concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result 
to adults, infants and children from chronic aggregate exposure to 
tebufenozide residues.
    6. Short- or intermediate-term risk.  Short and intermediate term 
risks are judged to be negligible due to the lack of significant 
toxicological effects observed.
    7.  Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA 
concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result 
to infants and children from aggregate exposure to tebufenozide 
residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Metabolism in Plants and Animals

    The qualitative nature of the residue in plants is adequately 
understood based upon acceptable apple, sugar beet, and rice metabolism 
studies. EPA has concluded that the residue of regulatory concern is 
tebufenozide per se. The qualitative nature of the residues in animals 
is also adequately understood based on acceptable poultry and ruminant 
metabolism studies. For animals, EPA has concluded that the residues of 
regulatory concern are tebufenozide and its metabolites benzoic acid, 
3,5-dimethyl-1-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-2-((4-carboxymethyl) 
benzoyl)hydrazide), benzoic acid, 3-hydroxymethyl,5-methyl-1-(1,1-
dimethylethyl)-2-(4-ethylbenzoyl)hydrazide, the stearic acid conjugate 
of benzoic acid, 3-hydroxymethyl,5-methyl-1-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-2-(4-
ethylbenzoyl)hydrazide and benzoic acid, 3-hydroxymethyl-5-methyl-1-
(1,1-dimethylethyl)-2-(4-(1-hydroxyethyl)benzoyl)hydrazide.

B. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    1. Analytical methods - sugarcane. The HPLC/UV methods (Rohm and 
Haas Method TR 34-95-66, TR 34-94-41, and TR34-97-115) used for 
determining residues of tebufenozide in/on sugarcane are adequate for 
collection of residue data. Adequate method validation and concurrent 
method recovery data have been submitted for these methods. The 
validated limit of quantitation (LOQ) is 0.01 ppm for residues of 
tebufenozide in/on sugarcane and sugarcane processed commodities.
    2. Analytical methods - sugarcane and sugarcane processed 
commodities. The petitioner also submitted an enforcement method (TR34-
97-115) for sugarcane and sugarcane processed commodities. This method 
has been adequately validated by an independent laboratory validation 
(ILV). EPA concludes that this proposed enforcement method (TR 34-97-
115) is very similar to the previous enforcement method on apples, 
which has been successfully validated by the Agency Analytical Lab. 
Therefore EPA concludes that no Agency validation is needed for the 
proposed enforcement method (TR 34-97-115) for sugarcane and sugarcane 
processed commodities. The method is suitable for publication in the 
Pesticide Analytical Manual, Volume II (PAM II) with an alphabetical 
designation (i.e., letter method).
    3. Analytical methods - animal tissues. A submitted HPLC/UV Method, 
Rohm and Haas Method TR 34-96-109, has been determined to be adequate 
for collecting data on residues of tebufenozide in animal tissues. The 
validated LOQ for tebufenozide in animal tissue is 0.02. The LOQ for 
each of the metabolites studied are as follows: RH-2703 in liver, 0.02 
ppm; RH-9886 and RH-0282 in meat 0.02 ppm; RH-9526 in fat, 0.02 ppm. 
The limits of detection (LODs) for the analytes are 0.006 ppm in 
tissues. The method has been sent to ACB/BEAD for validation as a 
possible enforcement method.
    4. Multiresidue methods. Rohm and Haas has previously submitted 
data involving multiresidue method testing. Tebufenozide was not 
recoverable by FDA Test Protocols A, B, D, or E; analysis by Protocol C 
was marginally successful. No further data are required at this time.
     These methods may be requested from: Calvin Furlow, PRRIB, IRSD 
(7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 
401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (703) 305-5229; 
e-mail address: [email protected].

C. Magnitude of Residues

    Samples of sugarcane from the residue field trials were stored 
frozen for 5-14 months prior to analysis, and sugarcane processed 
commodities were stored frozen for 2-11 months. EPA concludes that the 
submitted residue data for sugarcane are adequate to support the 
permanent tolerance petition for sugarcane and sugarcane molasses.
    EPA concludes that the geographic representation of the crop field 
trials on sugarcane is adequate and that data are sufficient to support 
the proposed 1.0 ppm tolerance for residues of tebufenozide in/on 
sugarcane.
    The submitted sugarcane processing studies are adequate. The 
concentration factor for molasses is 4.5. Multiplying the average 
concentration factor (4.5) and the highest average field trial (HAFT) 
residue (0.63) gives 3.0 ppm. Therefore EPA has determined that 
tolerance for sugarcane molasses should be set at 3.0 ppm (instead of 
proposed 6.0 ppm) based on the available processing studies. No 
tolerance is needed for refined sugar. Tolerances for livestock 
commodities have been established; therefore, residues of tebufenozide 
in meat, milk, poultry and eggs from the use on sugarcane are covered.

D. International Residue Limits

    No CODEX, Canadian or Mexican limits for tebufenozide have been 
established on sugarcane.

E. Rotational Crop Restrictions

    EPA has determined that crops which the label allows tebufenozide 
to be treated directly can be planted at any time. All other crops can 
not be planted within 12 months of application.

[[Page 51257]]

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, the tolerance is established for residues of 
tebufenozide in sugarcane and sugarcane molasses at 1.0 and 3.0 ppm, 
respectively.

VI. Objections and Hearing Requests

     Under section 408(g) of the FFDCA, as amended by the FQPA, any 
person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may 
also request a hearing on those objections. The EPA procedural 
regulations which govern the submission of objections and requests for 
hearings appear in 40 CFR part 178. Although the procedures in those 
regulations require some modification to reflect the amendments made to 
the FFDCA by the FQPA of 1996, EPA will continue to use those 
procedures, with appropriate adjustments, until the necessary 
modifications can be made. The new section 408(g) provides essentially 
the same process for persons to ``object'' to a regulation for an 
exemption from the requirement of a tolerance issued by EPA under new 
section 408(d), as was provided in the old FFDCA sections 408 and 409. 
However, the period for filing objections is now 60 days, rather than 
30 days.

A. What Do I Need to Do to File an Objection or Request a Hearing?

    You must file your objection or request a hearing on this 
regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in this unit 
and in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must 
identify docket control number OPP-300914 in the subject line on the 
first page of your submission. All requests must be in writing, and 
must be mailed or delivered to the Hearing Clerk on or before November 
22, 1999.
    1.  Filing the request. Your objection must specify the specific 
provisions in the regulation that you object to, and the grounds for 
the objections (40 CFR 178.25). If a hearing is requested, the 
objections must include a statement of the factual issues(s) on which a 
hearing is requested, the requestor's contentions on such issues, and a 
summary of any evidence relied upon by the objector (40 CFR 178.27). 
Information submitted in connection with an objection or hearing 
request may be claimed confidential by marking any part or all of that 
information as CBI. Information so marked will not be disclosed except 
in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. A copy of the 
information that does not contain CBI must be submitted for inclusion 
in the public record. Information not marked confidential may be 
disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice.
    Mail your written request to: Office of the Hearing Clerk (1900), 
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460. 
You may also deliver your request to the Office of the Hearing Clerk in 
Room M3708, Waterside Mall, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460. The 
Office of the Hearing Clerk is open from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday 
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the 
Office of the Hearing Clerk is (202) 260-4865.
    2.  Tolerance fee payment. If you file an objection or request a 
hearing, you must also pay the fee prescribed by 40 CFR 180.33(i) or 
request a waiver of that fee pursuant to 40 CFR 180.33(m). You must 
mail the fee to: EPA Headquarters Accounting Operations Branch, Office 
of Pesticide Programs, P.O. Box 360277M, Pittsburgh, PA 15251. Please 
identify the fee submission by labeling it ``Tolerance Petition Fees.''
    EPA is authorized to waive any fee requirement ``when in the 
judgement of the Administrator such a waiver or refund is equitable and 
not contrary to the purpose of this subsection.'' For additional 
information regarding the waiver of these fees, you may contact James 
Tompkins by phone at (703) 305-5697, by e-mail at [email protected], 
or by mailing a request for information to Mr. Tompkins at Registration 
Division (7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental 
Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460.
    If you would like to request a waiver of the tolerance objection 
fees, you must mail your request for such a waiver to: James Hollins, 
Information Resources and Services Division (7502C), Office of 
Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., 
Washington, DC 20460.
    3. Copies for the Docket. In addition to filing an objection or 
hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in Unit VI.A. of 
this preamble, you should also send a copy of your request to the PIRIB 
for its inclusion in the official record that is described in Unit 
I.B.2. of this preamble. Mail your copies, identified by docket control 
number OPP-300914, to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch, 
Information Resources and Services Division (7502C), Office of 
Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., 
Washington, DC 20460. In person or by courier, bring a copy to the 
location of the PIRIB described in Unit I.B.2. of this preamble. You 
may also send an electronic copy of your request via e-mail to: opp-
[email protected]. Please use an ASCII file format and avoid the use of 
special characters and any form of encryption. Copies of electronic 
objections and hearing requests will also be accepted on disks in 
WordPerfect 5.1/6.1 file format or ASCII file format. Do not include 
any CBI in your electronic copy. You may also submit an electronic copy 
of your request at many Federal Depository Libraries.

 B. When Will the Agency Grant a Request for a Hearing?

     A request for a hearing will be granted if the Administrator 
determines that the material submitted shows the following: There is a 
genuine and substantial issue of fact; there is a reasonable 
possibility that available evidence identified by the requestor would, 
if established resolve one or more of such issues in favor of the 
requestor, taking into account uncontested claims or facts to the 
contrary; and resolution of the factual issues(s) in the manner sought 
by the requestor would be adequate to justify the action requested (40 
CFR 178.32).

VII. Regulatory Assessment Requirements

    This final rule establishes a tolerance under section 408(d) of the 
FFDCA in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from 
review under Executive Order 12866, entitled  Regulatory Planning and 
Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). This final rule does not contain 
any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork 
Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501  et seq., or impose any enforceable 
duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the 
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Public Law 104-4). Nor 
does it require prior consultation with State, local, and tribal 
government officials as specified by Executive Order 12875, entitled  
Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership (58 FR 58093, October 28, 
1993) and Executive Order 13084, entitled  Consultation and 
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (63 FR 27655, May 19, 
1998), or special consideration of environmental justice related issues 
under Executive Order 12898, entitled  Federal Actions to Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) or require OMB review in 
accordance with Executive Order 13045, entitled Protection of Children 
from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 
23, 1997). The Agency has determined that this action will not have a 
substantial direct effect

[[Page 51258]]

on States, on the relationship between the national government and the 
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the 
various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 12612, 
entitled Federalism (52 FR 41685, October 30, 1987). This action 
directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers and food 
retailers, not States. This action does not alter the relationships or 
distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in 
the preemption provisions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 
21 U.S.C. 346a(b)(4). This action does not involve any technical 
standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary 
consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National 
Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 
104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note). In addition, since 
tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a 
petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance in this 
final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the 
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et 
seq.) do not apply.

VIII. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other 
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of this rule in the Federal Register. This rule is not a 
``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

 List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

     Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, 
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: September 9, 1999.

James Jones,

Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
     Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

 PART 180-[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as 
follows:

     Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), (346a) and 371.

    2. In Sec.  180.482, by adding alphabetically in paragraph (b), the 
following commodities to the table to read as follows:


Sec.  180.482   Tebufenozide; tolerances for residues.

    *    *    *    *    *
    (b) *    *    *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Parts   Expiration/
                    Commodity                         per     Revocation
                                                    million      Date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                   *        *        *      *        *
Sugarcane........................................   1.0              N/A
Sugarcane molasses...............................   3.0              N/A
 
                   *        *        *      *        *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

*    *    *    *    *

[FR Doc. 99-24695 Filed 9-21-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F